Ethical reactive journalism creates us vs. them media

Ardimas Sasdi, Jakarta

The imprisonment of two journalists from the Koridor Lampung daily by the Tanjung Karang District Court last week further added to the long list of court victories by aggrieved members of the elite against the press over the last few years.

The verdict in the case, which pitted the tabloid against a legislator from the Golkar Party, showed the powerlessness of the media in the face of libel law, especially when wielded by politicians and wealthy businesspeople. It also strengthened negative perceptions regarding the inconsistency of the legal system and law enforcement.

These negative perceptions stem from the draconian stance taken by the court in ordering the immediate detention of the journalists, in marked contrast to the usual approach adopted by the courts in corruption cases. The then House of Representatives speaker Akbar Tandjung, for example, was sentenced by the Jakarta District Court to three years in jail upon his conviction in a Rp 3.1 billion (US$ 319,000) malfeasance case, but remained free on appeal. His conviction was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

The prosecution of Koridor Lampung is one of around 30 libel prosecutions and civil actions, some of which involved whopping claims for damages, against the media over the last five years. Other prominent cases involved Tempo news magazine and businessmen Tomy Winata, the Koran Tempo daily and Tomy Winata, the Rakyat Merdeka daily and then president Megawati Soekarnoputri, Rakyat Merdeka and Akbar Tandjung, the Kompas daily and businessman Marimutu Sinivasan, and the Sriwijaya Post daily and former intelligence czar, the late Z.A. Maulani.

The demands of the plaintiffs in these cases included, but were certainly not limited to, the publication of apologies in the national media and the payment of millions of dollars in damages. These demands, which sent chills down the spines of press executives and owners, proved that the primary aim was not to defend the good names and honor of the plaintiffs, but rather to attack and punish the media.

No studies have been conducted on the extent of the damage inflicted on the publications involved, but the trials always resulted in great, unanticipated expense, the wasting of time and energy on the part media executives, and a public clamor over the role of the media.

The media has two choices in the face of these persistent attacks by individuals and interest groups, whose primary objective appears to be far removed from the goal of engendering ethical, fair and balanced reporting.

The first choice is for the media to put its house in order, which means an improvement in professional standards and strict adherence to the journalistic code of ethics.

The second choice is for media outlets, which have recently become pure commercial entities with the bottom line being higher profits for shareholders and improved conditions for employees, to avoid sensitive issues in order to ward off costly court cases. If this is the route that is taken, then the media will be responsible for abdicating its essential role in our democratic society.

Rattled by the unrelenting attacks, media executives and owners have begun to realize the real and present danger of operating in an increasingly hostile social, legal and economic environment. Some media groups, such as the Kompas and Jawa Pos groups, have taken steps to ensure their survival by strictly adhering to jurnalistic ethics and establishment of the ombudsman.

But, in general, the Indonesian media, which is considered by some experts to have spun out of control since the onset of the so-called reform era, has failed to improve its professionalism and adhere to jurnalistic ethics. Or, at best, outlets have reacted in what Conrad C. Fink, a former Associated Press executive and journalism professor, called "ethical reactive" mode.

Ethical reactive journalism has two parents -- external criticism and pressure, and internal turmoil and self-doubt among journalists themselves who have a growing preoccupation with whether what they do is ethical, fair and balanced. But this journalism is defensive to societal criticism of the media, which is arguably harsher and more determined than ever before.

Meanwhile, the Press Council has reported that more than 50 percent of the 300 written complaints received by the council from 2000 to 2003 were about news reports that were not up to professional standards or in violation of the jurnalistic code of ethics.

Experts have also attributed the rise in the number of complaints from the public to factors such as a lack of understanding of or reluctance by journalists to strictly adhere to jurnalistic ethics and a poor understanding on the part of officials and officeholders as regards the concept of public accountability. The control and oversight functions of the press are ignored by officials or even regarded as acts of defamation.

The current gloomy situation has been aggravated by a disruption in the training and education of journalists, the failure to inculcate an awareness of jurnalistic ethics among press workers and the public at large, and a drastic change in the political landscape.

The journalists' associations, Press Council, pro-democracy activists and other like-minded groups should view this new reality as a challenge. But so far no action has been taken, and the prevailing attitude seems to be business as usual.

The author is a staff writer with The Jakarta Post.